Alan Jackson Says Goodbye to the DA's Office

UPDATE Jan 21st, 2013 Alan Jackson will be on Headline News (HLN) at 6PM PST with Dr Drew discussing the Jodi Arias case.

On February 6th, 2013, the Los Angeles Times reported:

Alan Jackson, a veteran Los Angeles County prosecutor whose bid to become district attorney ended in defeat in November, is leaving the district attorney's office to join a private, downtown firm that practices civil law.

Jackson, 47, said his last day in the office he sought to lead will be Feb. 15. He will pursue a career as a civil litigator with Palmer, Lombardi and Donohue, whose three partners were political supporters of his election campaign.

I was quite sad to read the news.

I'll never forget the first time I spoke to Jackson.  It was in the evening, August 16th, 2007, months into the first Phil Spector murder trial. Spector was on trial for the murder of Lana Clarkson and it was being televised on CourtTV.

 That day and the day before had been two exceptionally stressful days for me in Judge Fidler's courtroom.  When I left the trial that day, I swore I wouldn't go back.  I was in my kitchen and I got a call from Dominick Dunne, who tells me he's at the Dodger game in a private box.  He's with the entire prosecution team on the Spector case and having the time of his life.  Dominick tells me the topic everyone is talking about at the game is the admonishment Judge Fidler gave me on the record. (I was accused of being the individual who spoke so loud in court that the jury heard me.) Dominick then tells me he has someone who wants to speak to me. The next voice I hear is DDA Alan Jackson.

I don't remember everything he said in that first conversation, but I do remember him telling me that he would talk to the judge. That this judge was a fair judge and he would like for me to come back to court on the next scheduled court day, which was a Tuesday.  Because Jackson took it upon himself to go to the judge, I got an apology from Judge Fidler on the record. Because of Jackson, I was vindicated.  That event was the catalyst that eventually developed into a friendship with Alan.

After the debacle of the first Spector trial, Jackson and I stayed in touch.  T&T got it's start during the first Spector trial and, I made a point to try to cover cases that Jackson was assigned.  Jackson was a brilliant prosecutor, a charismatic orator, and I wanted to follow his career. I wanted to experience first hand, his skills in the courtroom and write about the cases he prosecuted.

When Kazuyoshi Miura was arrested in Saipan,  I started to go to the hearings.

Robbery Homicide Detective Rick Jackson, left, 

Kazuyoshi Miura, right

Kazuyoshi Miura was convicted of the 1981 shooting death of his wife, Kazumi, on a downtown Los Angeles street in his native country, Japan. Ten years later, a higher court overturned the verdict and he was released. In February 2008 Miura traveled to Saipan, a US territory, where was arrested on an outstanding 1988 warrant. He was held in Saipan while attorneys in Los Angeles argued whether he could be brought back to the US and tried for murder, again.

It was a complicated legal issue.  Miura's defense attorney, Mark Geragos, argued that bringing him back to the US and prosecuting him again would be double jeopardy. The court transcripts from Japan had to be obtained and translated. A expert witness in the Japanese language testified to the accuracy of the translation and the meaning of specific words. It was difficult to follow each side's arguments as to which aspect of the Penal Code should apply.

Because of the arguments presented by Jackson and his co-counsels DDA Ricardo Ocampo (now Judge Ocampo) and DDA Phyllis Asayama, Judge Van Sicklen ruled: “Although the murder charge is barred by double jeopardy, the State may proceed on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder because there is no evidence that Miura was previously acquitted or convicted of the same offense in Japan." Unfortunately, the case ended when Miura committed suicide within 24 hours of touching down on US soil.

When Spector's retrial finally came around in November 2008, I knew I would dedicate myself to attending every single day of the case.  I wasn't going to let Spector or his trial bride try to eject me from the courtroom again. There were no cameras this time and Jackson had a new co-counsel, DDA Truc Do (now with Munger Tolles & Olson).  It was during the retrial that Jackson opened up more, and insisted I keep him informed of any intimidation tactics the Spector's or their supporters threw my way.

Alan's strategy for the second trial was tighter, more focused, presenting fewer witnesses than the first trial.  Alan and Truc Do's opponent this time was not a large defense team, but a single counsel, Doron Weinberg, a crafty and difficult adversary. From the very start, Jackson and Weinberg had difficulty getting along.  To me, it appeared that Weinberg used every delay tactic he could not to turn over discovery.   Even Judge Fidler commented outside the presence of the jury that it was "evident" Jackson and Weinberg couldn't stand each other.  Weinberg was able to convince Judge Fidler to let him present an expert on suicide and an expert on memory. Despite these obstacles, Jackson's cross examination of many of the defense witnesses was a pleasure to watch.  The most memorable were doctors Werner Spitz and Vincent DiMaio. Spitz lost his temper more than once on the stand and could not answer the most basic questions about his billing practices.  I remember that defense expert Dr. DiMaio complimented Jackson on an excellent cross examination when he stepped off the stand.

Alan was the first person I asked for advice when a Spector fan posted my personal information online and he willingly gave it.  No matter what the question was, Alan always found the time to respond.  During the second trial there were many times that people in the gallery would ask the prosecution team questions before court started.  At one point, I asked him if he would ever consider going into private practice.  At the time he responded in a very strong tone, "Never!"  Jackson's message was clear. He was a career prosecutor. Prosecuting criminals was his life's work.  But things happen in our lives that we can't always foresee.  As everyone knows, Spector was convicted of second degree murder on April 13th, 2009.

Spector booking photo, post conviction

Over the next several years, I was fortunate to attend many court hearings and one more trial where Alan was involved in the prosecution: the  Lily Burke, preliminary hearing, the James Fayed, trial and pretrial hearings for Kelly Soo Park and Alberd Tersargyan.

No matter the case, attending a trial or a short pretrial hearing where Alan was the prosecutor was always time well spent.

James Fayed, sentenced to death

I'll never forget during the James Fayed case, when Alan brought some of the seized gold bars and gold coins into court.  He passed a $50,000 gold bar to Judge Kennedy and the jurors, so they could feel the weight of it.  After that day in court, I asked him what it was like.  He was astounded at the experience of having over a million dollars in bullion sitting in a box at his desk that morning (with a FBI agent in tow, guarding the bullion), as well as holding a single gold bar, the cost of a brand new Lexus, in his hand.

In May 2010, Alan received his second prosecutor of the year award. By this time he had already been promoted to Assistant Head Deputy of Major Crimes.  Even though my trial coverage took a back seat to my real life responsibilities, I tried to report on the various projects Alan was involved in and keep in touch with him by email. 

When Alan announced in December 2010 that he was making a run for the District Attorney's Office, I immediately signed up on his campaign web site.  I didn't think twice about it. It didn't matter than we were members of opposing political parties because I knew Alan personally.  I felt he had the integrity and skills to lead the DA's office.

Even though the DA's office is non-partisan, politics is still a major factor in this race. I knew Alan would have a tough road to climb in a mostly democratic county. Even though I had never written about this type of subject, in support of Alan, I attended many of the debates for district attorney and blogged about them.

When Alan was defeated on November 6th, I was hoping that things would work out at the DA's office. Sadly, that was not to be.  Back in May 2011 during the Fayed trial, I asked Alan, "What are your plans if you don't win?"  At that time, he told me he didn't have a "Plan B" and I was very worried for him. Fortunately, he did eventually get a plan in place.  Alan joined the civil litigation firm of  Palmer, Lombardi & Donohue.

There's no question that Alan is a brilliant trial strategist, highly respected by his peers.  The clients that chose him, will get a tirelessly dedicated attorney that will fight the hardest for them.  Even though Alan has moved into civil litigation, I hope to continue following his career by dropping in on the cases he takes on.  Best of luck to you Alan.  I hope to see you inside a courtroom again, soon.

Vanity Fair, Domick Dunne 'Legend With A Bullet'

About Alan Jackson, (From Vote Alan Jackson website)

LA Times, DA's Rival Has A New Post

LA Times Opinion, Lacey's Definition of Lateral

Note:
Phil Spector convicted of the murder of Lana Clarkson
James Fayed convicted of the murder for hire of his wife, Pamela
Kelly Soo Park is charged with the first degree murder of Juliana Redding
Alberd Tersargyan is charged with four murders
Kazuyoshi Miura, convicted in Japan of murdering his wife, Kazumi. Verdict overturned.

Kazuyoshi Miura: Judge Rules Conspiracy Charge Can Go Forward

Today Judge Van Sicklen finally ruled on the defense's motion to quash the 1988 arrest warrant of Kazuyoshi Miura for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The murder of Miura's wife, Kazumi, occurred on a busy side street in downtown Los Angeles over twenty-five years ago. Miura was shot in the leg and Kazumi was shot in the head. She died a year later.

Van Sicklen granted the motion to quash on the first degree murder charge on double jeopardy grounds, but denied the motion on the conspiracy charge. In his ruling, Van Sicklen wrote, “Although the murder charge is barred by double jeopardy, the State may proceed on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder because there is no evidence that Miura was previously acquitted or convicted of the same offense in Japan."

The prosecution on the conspiracy charge will go forward. All that needs to happen now is to get Miura to the US.

It's taken quite a bit of time to get to a resolution on this matter. Back in February of this year, Miura traveled from his native Japan to Siapan where he was arrested on that old, 1988 outstanding warrant. Ever since, the Los Angeles DA's office has been trying to get him extradited to Los Angeles, and high profile attorney Mark Geragos has been trying to squash the arrest warrant. Authorities were alerted to Miura's travel plans to the US territory because they had been monitoring Miura's Internet blog, where he talked about taking the trip. Note to the criminally stupid: If there's still a murder warrant out on you in another country, it's probably not a good idea to detail your travel plans on your publicly viewed Internet blog.

During the July hearing, Judge Van Sicklen stated that before it could be determined if the alleged crimes were the same crimes that Miura was convicted of in Japan, he would need to see translations of the Japanese court rulings. From what I've overheard in court, these translations run over five hundred pages and were probably very costly. During this hearing, Van Sicklen also ordered a live video feed hookup with Saipan, so that Miura could "appear" at the next hearing.

August 15th
The live video connection was accomplished with a translator in Saipan for Mr. Miura and a translator in the court to record anything he might say.

Alan Jackson, Ric Ocampo and Phyllis Asayama were arguing for the people. Mark Geragos and his associate, Nareg Gourjian, are representing Miura in Los Angeles. Miura also has three high profile attorneys in Saipan, as well as legal representation in Japan. A huge video screen was set up in the court. Once Miura's face appeared on the screen and sound checks were made, court was called into session. On the record, Miura formally waived his right to appear.

The prosecution presented Mark D. West, a law professor at the University of Michigan. He founded the Japanese Law Studies, Law Program in 1998 at the university. After direct exam and cross, Professor West was accepted as a legal expert in Japanese law. Professor West is fluent in written and spoken Japanese, has been invited to teach at many schools in Japan, and read the Japan court rulings in their original Japanese.

The main issue of disagreement between the parties is the conspiracy issue and the expo facto issue. The question that needs to be answered by the court: Is our (Californial Criminal Code) conspiracy statute the same as the one in existence in Japan? Professor West testifies and educates everyone on the nuanced differences between US Law and Japanese Law.

In Japan you can not be charged with just conspiracy. There is no such statute of law on their books. However, under their murder statute, there is a theory of colusion, but you can not be convicted of a "theory" in Japan. West testifies that Japan is in violation of international treaties because it does not have a conspiracy statute. There is a big movement in Japan to try to enact a conspiracy law. They have tried three times and each time it has failed. After reading the Japanese court documents, Professor West testified that Miura was convicted of attempted murder, fraud and murder. The murder conviction was later overturned by a higher court and Miura released from prison.

Professor West held his own under relentless cross examination by Mark Geragos. Professor West disagreed with the prosecution's translation of the Japanese court proceedings, where the English word "conspiracy" is used several times. One of the Japanese words that can have several meanings, especially when used in the context of law is "kyobo." West states that it was translated as "conspiracy, collusion, colludes." In his reading of the court documents, it was not always translated properly. Koybo does not have the same concept in the US, West said. In translation, it can mean collusion or plotting. But the word plotting is not a easy word to translate from Japanese to English. Translating koybo as "complicity" would be a stretch.

Professor West was clear that in Japan, you can not be convicted for conspiracy as a stand alone charge. As Geragos gets snippy with West, the video feed with Saipan is lost, but not the sound connection. Several times Geragos raises his voice and appears to be badgering the witness.

At about this same time, a buzzer goes off in the courtroom. There is a jury deliberating in the jury room and they want to go home. The court takes a few minutes break while the Judge deals with the jury working on another case. If I'm remembering correctly, Allan Parachini, who is sitting in the jury box along with the Japanese film crew and still photographers, gets up and forcefully moves the film camera so that it is aiming away from possibly photographing any jurors that might be exiting the courtroom.

It's near 4:30 pm and Judge Van Sicklen will not continue the hearing past that time. Geragos has not had the opportunity to put on his own witness. His expert who wrote an opinion submitted with his motion, a Mr. Cleary (sp?) is currently in Mongolia. He wants to try to get him here to testify.

Judge Van Sicklen wants to continue the hearing and counsel try to work out another day and time. As court is ending, Van Sicklen comments that, ". . . the written work on both sides is outstanding." The next hearing date is scheduled for September 5th, at 1:30 pm.

September 5th
On this day, Mr. Sprocket drives down with me to the Torrance courthouse. I want him to take a short video of the prosecution arriving at court so I can put it up on the blog. However, we arrived too late to film their arrival. Mr. Sprocket left me at the courthouse and went off shopping at Home Depot. I was only able to get a photo of Mr. Pat Dixon arriving by himself.

When I'm finally in the courtroom, all the same players are seated and ready to go. Geragos for the defense, and Jackson, Ocampo, and Asayama for the prosecution. Pat Dixon is sitting in the row in front of me. I notice he has a large, absolutely striking watch on his left wrist and I have a hard time pulling my eyes away from it. There is a waiver by both parties for the Saipan hookup today. Geragos filed a number of exhibits but will not be putting on any witnesses today. I'm guessing he couldn't get his expert to leave Mongolia and come to the US to testify.

Geragos argues his exhibits first. Van Sicklen removes his glasses and rocks a bit in his chair, his expression a study in concentration as he listens to Geragos's argument. Late arrival reporters enter the room and I have a hard time hearing Geragos from the back row. Consequently, I don't have any notes on his arguments. Then Jackson is up at bat and he makes an interesting argument. "The real issue is, which law applies? We know there is a 793 law that provides no protection [. . .] which of the two citations of the law applies [here]? The law as it stands clearly dictates that the only penal code that applies is 793. Any statute can be appealed at any time [. . .] 656 is not a substantial defense; it's a procedural [statute]. 793 only vests when he [the defendant] enters a plea of once in jeopardy. The laws methods have to be pursued by the defendant. Double jeopardy is not applied unless the defense has asked for the application of those rights. [. . .] As I indicated, a change in a statute can be amend a procedure down the road."

More arguments are made, and then Judge Van Sicklen does something interesting. He interrupts Jackson and asks this question of him, "When does jeopardy attach?" And with this question, I get a gut feeling that Van Sicklen has made up his mind on the murder charge, and he believes that jeopardy has attached in the '88 murder warrant. I keep thinking he's going to rule on that right then and there. Jackson and Van Sicklen go back and forth on this issue. Asayama steps up and states, "He [Miura] never made that claim of double jeopardy. In order for it to legally vest, the defendant has to assert." Jackson is back on point. "[The] defendant never entered the once in jeopardy plea. [. . .] He has no double jeopardy claim because California doesn't recognize the Japan conviction." With this argument, Jackson is relying on the new statute that was ammended in 2004.

It's now Ric Ocampo's turn, and he addresses the "aiding and abetting" theory verses the "conspiracy" theory. There are several ways the prosecution can go, since the ". . . crime of conspiracy doesn't exist in Japan. There is no 'enhanced' punishment in Japan for a 'theory' of conspiracy."

Geragos gets in the last word today. "It's not true that it's necessary a defendant has to come to court to declare to be vested. The act that triggers the protection is the jury conviction." Geragos's tone shows he's quite irritated with the prosecution's arguments. "Jeopardy attaches once the conviction occurs. The comparison of this case to a juvenile case example is ludacrous!"

Judge Van Sicklen responds, "I think I've heard enough. there's still a lot of analysis I have to do, but by the end of next week, it's impossible. I'm going to try to provide some analysis." With a smile on his face Van Sicklen adds, "No more briefs!" And with that comment several of the attorney's laugh and court is adjourned for the day.

I call Mr. Sprocket to come pick me up and we decide to spend the rest of the day shopping in the Torrance area. We stop by the huge Marukai market and some other Asian stores before we head back to the valley.

September 26th
On the drive down donchais and I talk about several hot cases we're covering and the various comments we've received on the blog: Judge Halverson, Casey Anthony and of course, Phil Spector. I don't believe there will be much coverage of Spector. The economy is about ready to tank, most new organizations are hurting and besides, it's old news. I predict if there is coverage, it will only be the important points of the trial. There will not be anything new at round deux. We both think that there is a strong possibility that Halverson could have injured herself because the tape of her 911 call sounds completely scripted. We're also hoping that the Orange County Sheriff's Office in Orlando, Florida is getting their final T's crossed and I's dotted for an arrest of Casey Anthony on the death of her child, Caylee. We are both overly saturated with Casey Anthony drama and wish the entire crazy family would just go away.

When I finally get to the parking lot, I realize that my cell phone battery is just about dead and I won't be able to take the photographs of the building and all the reporters waiting outside like I had hoped. I sit in my car a bit, trying to charge up my phone.

On the fifth floor, the crowd of Japanese reporters appears smaller than the last time, but it's just an illusion. The Public Information Office (PIO) has more than half their staff here to keep the process moving smoothly and orderly. There is a demand for individuals to turn over their recording devices, and many of the reporters hand them to the PIO staff for safekeeping. Today, Allan Parachini announces to the crowd that no email, PDA's or laptops will be allowed in the courtroom today. I notice there are two young deputy explorers standing by the front door to the courtroom and they will be inside to assist in keeping order.

I see the City News desk reporter, and I over hear her talking to the newest member of the PIO staff. I step closer and ask her if she will be covering Spector. She doesn't know yet. Her superiors still have not made the decision whether or not they will put a reporter on that trial every day. And then I see a face that I thought had left the PIO office and moved out of state. It's Miriam! I over hear her tell someone that she's just here for a wedding, and she is helping out for a few days. I reach over and touch her shoulder and tell her it's nice to see her.

I'm finally inside the courtroom in the back row, but I don't see any counsel up at the tables. Sandi Gibbons is a late arrival with Rick Ocampo. Phyllis I saw in the hallway earlier. I see Claudia from KFWB grab the last seat in the front row on the right. I haven't seen her since a month or so after the end of Spector 1. I now see Mark Geragos alone at the defense table. The courtroom is packed. Almost every seat is filled. It's 1:32 pm and Alan Jackson isn't here yet.

A few minutes later and I see Jackson at the prosecution's table. He appears to be reading a document, his posture in a familiar position. His right elbow is resting on the table, and his right forefinger is resting on his right temple. He appears completely absorbed in the document he's reading. At 1:36 pm Judge Van Sicklen takes the bench.

Van Sicklen states that both counsels have the written ruling with his analysis he's prepared. He is granting the defense motion to quash the arrest warrant on the murder, but denying it as to the conspiracy count. His reasons for his decisions are in the written ruling.

Geragos requests that the Judge stay the ruling until they can get an appellate ruling. Van Sicklen responds, "I don't have any jurisdiction over Saipan." Geragos goes on to ask again to stay to seek an appellate ruling. Ocampo stands and defends the people's position.

Van Sicklen states, "He [Miura] will be arraigned in downtown, Department 30." The case is now out of his hands.

And that's it. Court is over and the press files out to get a copy of the Judge's written ruling. Only those news organizations on the list will receive a single free copy. All others will have to pay for a copy in the clerk's office. I debate on whether or not to wait the reported half hour it will take to get the extra copies ready for sale. I decide to leave the courthouse and head home.

Outside the courthouse, I'm standing on the steps trying to decide whether or not I'm going to listen to Geragos talk to the press or head directly home. Jackson and Ric Ocampo are on the sidewalk along with, IIRC, Pat Dixon. This is my opportunity to ask the prosecution a question. I approach the group and ask, "Has it been decided who will be assigned to this case?" Ocampo responds that at this time, nothing has changed. Ocampo and Dixon are now trying to convince Jackson to at least listen in on the presser. Jackson's not interested, and I don't blame him. Ocampo asks Jackson something to the effect of, "What are you going to go do?" And Jackson jokingly responds "I'm going to go hang out with her," reaching his arm out towards me. At a loss for words, I smile as everyone slowly walks over to listen in on what Geragos is saying to the press.

Afterwards, Sandi Gibbons addresses the group of reporters. When I get bored with the press questions, I walk towards the group of PIO staff. Nervous, I try to make some small talk with the ladies. "Is it a short day today?" I ask. They smile and say it's already a long day. And then I ask them a faux pas question, "Did anyone have any predictions?" And that makes them all freeze and Allan Parachini quickly comes over to answer, stating something to the effect of, "It's not their position to have an opinion." Oops. Wrong thing to ask. All during the drive home I'm driving behind a huge white truck that says, 'Document Shredmobile,' and all I can think about is I'm worrying that I've unintentionally pissed of Allan Parachini. From now on, I'll just smile and ask if anyone has any pets.

The Associated Press

Rafu.com

Phil Spector Pretrial Hearing August 14th, 2008, Kazuhoshi Miura, Cameron Brown and Dominick Dunne

With so much going on in the Sprocket household these days, I decided to drive into downtown LA for Spector's pretrial hearing so I could get back home, faster. I was hoping that I might run into Dr. C. Carroll Adams for an update on what's happening in the Cameron Brown case and as luck would have it, Dr. Adams was in the hallway on the 9th floor, waiting for Judge Pastor's courtroom to open at 1:30. He is currently watching a retrial of a case he first started watching at the end of Spector 1. He could not talk about it above a whisper at all (I barely heard what he said), since jurors from that trial were in the hallway all around us.

Dr. Adams mentioned that Spector's defense team was at the courthouse yesterday, appearing before Judge Perry in Dept 104. This had to do with the double jeopardy issue and the motion for an "indefinite stay" in Spector's trial that the Associated Press reported on yesterday.

We talked a bit about this motion for an indefinite stay filed by Spector's defense team. I will explain it a bit here since I've received a few emails and comments on the blog about the "double jeopardy" motion filed by the defense and people are confused about it. First, you need to read the defense's motion , titled "DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION IN LIMINE, BASED ON PLEA OF ONCE IN JEOPARDY, FOR ORDER PRECLUDING THE PROSECUTION FROM DISCUSSING IN ITS OPENING STATEMENT, INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF, MAKING CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON, OR SEEKING INSTRUCTIONS ON ANY LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CHARGED CRIMES OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER." It's available on the LA County Court's website, here. After that, I recommend reading the prosecution's response to that motion here, on T&T. I did not copy the entire document and the Court's website has not yet uploaded a copy of the document.

At the end of Spector 1, once both parties rested and the jury instructions were hammered out. (Do you remember that torturous process?) At that time, the Court ruled that since no party presented a theory that would support a lesser included charge (manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter), then the jury would not receive any instruction to consider lesser included. They were only given the option of second degree murder or not guilty. The defense is now trying to say that since the Court instructed that in the first trial, that amounts to an "acquittal" of a lesser charge of manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Consequently, because of that ruling, the prosecution should be prohibited from being able to present any arguments for lesser included charges in their case in the retrial, because if they did, that would be "double jeopardy" for those lesser charges.

On July 29th, the motions mentioned above were argued before Judge Fidler. At that hearing, Fidler stated that he would not rule on the defense motion at this time because it's too early. The Court does not know what the evidence will show. He would not make a ruling. There is no decision on this yet because the trial evidence has not been presented to a jury. However, the defense went before another judge requesting an "indefinite stay" so they will have ample time to "appeal" this issue. The problem is, there is no ruling to appeal. Fidler hasn't ruled on their initial motion. My thoughts are (and one reporter I spoke to agreed with me) that this stay will fail because how can one appeal a nonexistent ruling? Here is what I think is happening: Spector is trying to delay the trial by any means possible and Riordan and Weinberg are just following Spector's marching orders. If Riordan is half the appellate attorney he thinks he is, he knows this latest stunt will not fly.

The Cameron Brown case, Dr. Adams tells me that the trial has been delayed until sometime in early October. He did not have an exact date for me in his notes. Geragos is off the case and Pat Harris has officially taken over as lead counsel. According to Dr. Adams, apparently, Geragos has not been paid and that appears to be the main reason he's no longer representing Brown. The next pretrial hearing in that case is scheduled for September 5th, and the count reset to 0-45 from that date. From what Dr. Adams told me, Harris is currently in trial on another case and that is delaying the Brown case. At the last hearing it was agreed by both parties and the Court that Harris doesn't have to appear on September 5th; someone can stand up for him. I won't be attending that hearing but thought I would report on the new dates for those who are interested.

While I'm talking to Dr. Adams, Allan Parachini arrived and so did the AP reporter and another reporter whom I don't know. They are chatting away about the Miura hearing tomorrow in Torrance. Almost at the same time, Ciaran shows up as well as Robin and Sherri. It's about 1:25 pm and Courtroom 106 isn't open yet. There is a cameraman talking to Allan, and for a moment I think he's going to cover the proceeding but then he says his goodbye's to Allan and the other reporter's and takes off. There will be no video coverage or photos of today's rulings. Two distinguished gentlemen arrive and stand near the end of the hall. I get the feeling they are from the DA's office because they are not carrying briefcases but I don't know for sure.

Weinberg arrives without Riordan. Spector has waived his right to appear which means Rachelle Short, the trial bride has missed another photo op. Weinberg comes up and shakes hands with the AP reporter and says hello to the group of reporters. A few minutes later the prosecution team arrives. It's Alan Jackson, Truc Do, Ric Ocampo and a few others I don't recognize. The team greets the reporters and walk past them to shake hands with the gentlemen who arrived earlier and are standing a bit behind the press. I didn't see Sandi Gibbons walk up but she's here. The courtroom is finally opened and everyone slowly files in. Once inside the courtroom a familiar face who was at the prosecution table operating the Elmo shows up and says hello to everyone. She takes a seat on the "defense" side of the room. If I'm recalling correctly, I believe her name is Sudi.

The man I don't recognize with the prosecution team sits directly in front of me beside Ric Ocampo. I'm in the second row, about two seats in, leaving plenty of room for the AP reporter who likes to sit on the end of that row. The reporter is right there ready to sit down and I think I mention to Sherri or Robin that this is where the AP reporter likes to sit. she smiles and I tell her, "That is your reserved seat." Sherri and Robin sit in the row behind me. The AP reporter is kind enough to update me on Dominick Dunne. I knew that the surgery was cancelled but I didn't know that the book he is currently working on is his memoirs. I thought he was still working on finishing his last Bailey book. The AP reporter said that he went to the Dominican Republic for stem cell treatments. While he was there, a big party was thrown for him. He may go back and get another round of treatments there. That's just like Dominick to have a great time in the midst of his health issues. I said to the reporter, "Dominick has so much to offer the world. It would be so sad if he's not with us much longer." Please go to Dominick's Diary page, and leave him some positive thoughts towards a swift recovery. You could also send him a card, care of Vanity Fair and it will get to him.

Jackson and Truc Do are at the prosecution table, and Jackson is speaking to the reporter I don't know, who is sitting beside Ciaran. Jackson and the reporter exchange a few words about the Miura hearing in Torrance tomorrow, where Jackson will be presenting arguments to continue the extradition of Miura to the US. Jackson then looks over at me and asks how I'm doing. I don't hear his question clearly, and I think he's asking about Mr. Sprocket (but I realize how could he know about his injured arm) and then I think I hear the words carpal tunnel. I don't know why but I'm embarrassed. He's asking about my writing at the keyboard. I'm a little befuddled because I'm now wondering if he is referring to all my typing of recreating the prosecution's motions for the blog, but I'm also wondering if he was referring to the fact that I don't have my laptop with me. I smile and say I'm fine.

As I look around the courtroom, I see Pat Dixon in the third row, way off to my left. He's busy studying a small section of newspaper. Jackson, Truc and Weinberg all go into Judge Fidler's chambers and are there for a few minutes and after they exit, court is called into session.

Fidler states that since the people have presented two motions they should go first. Jackson starts off by mentioning something about a filing that the defense made that ". . . purports to be a declaration, but it's not a declaration. It doesn't establish any evidence or facts...but it does state argument...." Since I don't know what document he is referring to, I'm immediately lost. I then regain my footing just a tad. It has something to do with the defense making a statement, something to the effect of, the Court has ruled the PBA witnesses could not testify. That didn't make any sense because they were admitted, but maybe the defense motion is about the one's who were excluded. I'm lost again.

Jackson then moves on to present the argument of his motion to admit all 12 PBA's, and his argument is the Doctrine of Chances and the Doctrine of Corroboration.

AJ: "1101(b) doesn't require that level of recipe, that all 1101(b)'s are on a date . . . the defense said this is not consistent because it's not similar enough . . . they are relying on a civil case, Bowen, and not a criminal law case." Jackson explains the case, and says that the Court ruled correctly in that case to exclude all eight PBA's. "(In this case here) . . . in every one of our incidents, the exact same weapon was used . . . that distinguishes our case from Bowen . . . a single common marker . . . and in our case. . ."

Weinberg then stands up to interrupt Jackson. He's objecting to Jackson's motion. He's upset that Jackson is arguing a motion that they did not have time to respond to. That in the last hearing, time lines were agreed upon as to when motions would be filed. The prosecution was supposed to file by August 8th, and they filed this motion they are arguing on August 11th. And, the prosecution has not responded to their motions about the PBA's or Kemper. It's Weinber's understanding that this was all agreed to in the last hearing. You can tell he's quite perturbed that the prosecution has not followed the agreed upon filing dates, and has not made any formal response to their motions.

Weinberg is upset about the prosecution's latest motion to admit the PBA's under a new theory, the Doctrine of Chances and the Doctrine of Corroboration. . . these are totally contrary to what where the Court ruled in the first trial, that the PBA's needed to be linked by motive. "What the Court said is motive. The Curt identified that as the basis . . . no way that this evidence flies as motive . . . they are trying to do exactly what you told them not to do.

Jackson steps away from the podium and sits down. Weinberg continues: "There's no response (from the prosecution) to the "motive" motion (they filed) . . . Riordan is not here today to brief it, and there are no motions in reply."

Judge Fidler then says, "This is a new trial. I'm not bound by any of that. I'm not bound by anything in the first trial." He goes onto explain that we are starting fresh here. If a new argument is presented, a new theory for admitting evidence, he's obligated to consider it.

Out of the corner of my eye I see Dixon motioning Ocampo in the first row to come over to where he is sitting.

Jackson gets up and explains to the Court that, "We didn't respond because our thought is, we didn't think it was necessary. We thought it was ridiculous. We felt we didn't need to (respond)."

Jackson goes onto explain that these arguments are all interconnected. We don't concede motive. We don't concede Kemper. We are seeking 12 witnesses.

Unfortunately it's not clear in my notes but I believe this next part is Weinberg speaking.

"They presented the Doctrine of Chances; the Doctrine of Corroboration . . . under that theory . . . our motion was to exclude this evidence on motive . . . our motive is that there simply is a misconstruction of motive of 1101(b). . . with Kemper . . . that was presented as a common scheme or plan, not motive."

Jackson leans over and whispers to Truc as Weinberg is speaking.

Weinberg goes onto say, "There are so many things wrong here. . . In order to add Kemper, they are suddenly changing their scheme . . ."

Jackson stands up and says, "Mr. Weinberg says he's not prepared . . . not prepared to argue Kemper. . . and then he argues Kemper . . . we could have saved several pages of Diane's transcription (the court reporter) . . . and the court's time . . ."

Judge Fidler finally says something to the effect of, that all these arguments should be addressed at one time and not in piecemeal. All parties agree to that and a new trial date is set for September 15th at 1:30 pm. The admissibility of Dr. Pena as a witness is brought up and whether or not that will be argued then but I believe the Court indicated that this would be held over until October 2-3, or right before trial starts.

And that's it. Court is over. The reporters are commenting a bit that there is no headline today. The AP reporter says that in a few days (I think next week) she's going to Vegas to cover the OJ trial, so she may or may not be here for the start of Spector. As we all slowly head toward the elevators, Weinberg answers a few questions off the record. As we wait for the elevator, I ask Mr. Weinberg if he is flying home this evening. Sherri, Robin and I ride the elevator down with him. He is polite to Sherri and Robin, asking who they are, what is their interest in the trial and making a correct guess that they are not here, "for" Spector. I had the devilish urge to introduce myself as, "the woman your client tried to get permanently removed from the courtroom in the first trial," but I censored myself and didn't say anything.

On the way back to the parking lot I gave donchais a call and tried to explain what happened today; basically nothing. I think both sides came to the hearing unprepared, but for different reasons. I have to say, it didn't appear to be a very good excuse that Jackson gave for not having filed any responses to Weinberg's motions. From what transpired, it looks like the prosecution is presenting an entirely different theory for Spector 2, as to why all the 12 1101(b) witnesses should be admitted into evidence. Whether Fidler will be swayed by their new arguments remains to be seen on September 15th.

Kazuyoshi Miura Case: Pre-Trial Hearing April 23rd, Part II

Miura Hearing Coverage Continued:

On the 13th floor, I round the corner and catch the eye of Liz from the public liaison's office. She immediately knows I will want a public seat. I get a ticket and my number is 696782. They are collecting recording devices from the reporters. When I get off the phone with donchais I try to get an internet connection in the hallway of the 13th floor. Nothing I try works. I'm using our data plan, tethering my phone to my laptop, and I've had this problem before. I can get a good connection while in the ground floor cafeteria, sometimes on the 9th floor hallway but I also had difficulty getting a connection within the courtroom at the last Spector pre-trial hearing. I'm coming to the realization that when Spector round deux comes around, I will have to bite the bullet and pay my cell phone service provider for a monthly internet connection if I have any hope of blogging on that trial from the back row of Courtroom 106.

So, I go back to scribbling notes in a notebook. Liz and another cute woman from the Public Liaison's office (I know her by sight from Spector but for the life of me I can't remember her name; Miriam; Marilyn?) start to call off the reporter's names or the news service they are with, and ask them to line up. "Ted Kim; Terry Keith; Channel 7; KNX Radio; Channel 5." I see a video camera operator go in. The Asian camera guy that I've seen at Spector and Robert Blake's civil trial get's called and he picks up his various cameras.

"LA Japanese News; Fox 11." I see Miriam Hernandez is here and she gets in line. Liz and her coworker struggle with some of the Japanese names. Four LA County sheriffs are standing off to the side beside me, watching the entire proceedings. More reporters keep arriving. I go up to Liz and I ask her who will be arguing for the people. Will it be Pat Dixon? I had read in some articles that he had been assigned to this case. Liz tells me a name of a prosecutor who's name has been on most of the motions, but then says, "Don't quote me." I tell her I won't say anything until I see the individual for myself.

One of the sheriff's in the group beside me is a very pretty woman who starts to speak to the Japanese reporters in Japanese. After she is finished, I go up to her and ask her what she told them. She said that she just told them that once they are in the courtroom, they must stay in. There will be no "going in and out." Geragos is finally here and he goes into the courtroom via the clerk/judge's entrance.

The reporter for the LA Times finally shows up and I also see Sandi Gibbons. A cute woman reporter on assignment here has been standing beside me, and I point out Sandi to her and tell that this is the DA's office spokesperson. She also had to get a ticket. I explain to her the process and that it is always like this. To get a reserved seat she has to register with the court's Public Information/Liaison's office. She's quite frustrated because they are now letting in the reporters that are on the waiting list for a seat, and some of them are second and third seats with papers that are already inside the courtroom. They are letting these journalists in before the public. They then start calling numbers and my number is not called. It's at the very end that Alan Parachini decides that there is enough room to let everyone else in the hall inside. If I'm remembering correctly, the reporter mentioned something about moving the hearing to a larger courtroom, and I told her this "is" the largest courtroom. When I finally get inside, the reporter that I was talking to in the hall is in the courtroom a row or two in front of me. I see Sandi Gibbons in the very front row on the far right of the courtroom, the same side I am sitting on.

This gallery is much wider than Fidler's courtroom and it is almost packed but not quite. There is also extra seating in the well area for assistants to sit directly behind the attorneys presenting their case. Alan Parachini is addressing the courtroom and he is explaining the rules of this courtroom. "There are no tape recorders allowed on your person. No cell phones. No trio's, no photography, no blackberries. We have allowed one Japanese news agency to film." I look over and I see that with the camera operator, there are two still photographers also set up. Alan goes onto say that if you are caught using a device that is not allowed such a recorder or take a photograph you will be removed from the courtroom and no one from your organization will be allowed back in to cover this case.

It's official. Alan Jackson and Ric Ocampo will be arguing for the people. I'm estatic. I observe some reporters hand their business cards to Sandi Gibbons. A sheriff now gets up and speaks to the crowd. He asks if there is anyone who did not get a blue envelope package. (It's actually a folder that he holds up.) I'm thinking, "Hey, I didn't get one, lol!" He point's out various papers in the folder with the universal images of cell phones and recorders with the circle around them and a line drawn through them. He basically says the same thing Alan Parachini said a few moments earlier.

In this courtroom, the prosecution is sitting on the right and the defense on the left. It's just the opposite of Judge Fidler's courtroom. It's now 1:35 pm and the judge finally takes the bench. Back in the far left of the well, I see a few ladies standing and one of them is Wendy, Judge Fidler's clerk. The Judge is Steven K. Van Sicklen.

Judge Van Sicklen starts off by saying he "...respects the fact that there is a significant interest in this case. We take the rules that apply to the media very seriously. We've allowed a camera and two still photographers." He stresses what Alan Parachini and the sheriff also said about no cell phones, no recording devices but goes onto to point out that since he has now mentioned this on the record, if anyone violates these rules then they could also be liable for prosecution for violating his directive.

Geragos is on the record for the defense, Alan Jackson and Rick Ocampo for the people. Geragos is presenting a motion to quash the arrest warrant. Van Sicklen states that he has read all of the motion papers that have been submitted, and Geragos is asked to stand up and address the people's response to his motion.

He starts off by talking in California penal code numbers, 656 and 793 and that each one operates differently. Geragos mentions the Martinez case ruling out of San Diego. He also brings up the amended 2004 law, and that there is nothing in there about applying this law retroactively. Specific areas of the penal code are mentioned and I get lost in the details of what he's trying to argue. In Geragos argument, "656 applies not 793."

Alan Jackson gets up to speak. I know he's going to present a great argument. "The reason we are all here is because he committed a murder in California. While we're not there (in trial?) yet, Mr. Miura is glaringly absent." Jackson brings up another section of the penal code 977b and says something to the effect that every proceeding "starts and stops there. It's not a willy nilly procedure." It's mandatory in all cases. The defendant must appear in court. Each time, the defendants body must be in the courtroom. He must come to court to appear or waive his presence. Even to waive his presence he has to appear before the court to waive it. He must be here at all stages of the proceedings. You can't possibly ignore this statue. Overturning these decisions are legion. It's to protect the defendant's right. It's our opinion that ends the argument. 977 begins and ends the argument."

Geragos stands to address the people's argument. "It's just plain wrong. 973 bars the people from prosecuting Miura. They have no jurisdiction. I have a notarized waiver from Mr. Miura."

The Judge asks about the next date in Saipan and it's May 28th. Saipan is waiting to see what happens in California. Van Sicklen addresses Geragos. "Mr. Jackson is correct. Unless we did something to his (Miura) detriment.... when can you litigate it? Can you do it pre-arraignment? Or does it actually have to go to trial? I've been wondering if you can do it before arraignment itself."

Gerago's gets back up and says 973 bars institutions from illegal prosecutions. (Those are not his exact words but it's something to that effect.) Van Sicklen says he agrees with the people's 656 argument, but he doesn't know about 793. When Geragos gets back up to argue, you can tell there is quite a bit of irritation in his voice. "They (656 and 793) were amended in tandem!!" he says with an exasperated tone.

Van Sicklen says something to the effect, "If 793 is an immediate (?) statute, and we have someone thousands of miles away.....what is your opinion Mr. Jackson and why, because of 793...???" Jackson replies that he (Miura) must make arguments in person because of 977. "The defendant can't phone in the defense. He can't say, I don't want to appear because it's inconvenient."

Van Sicklen responds that the extradition is not before the court, and he doesn't really want to discuss that since it is not in any of the motion papers. But that is at the heart of the matter. The motion to quash, the complaint and the underlying warrant all goes to the extradition.

Geragos gets up and argues again the differences between the three statues. Stricklen states that Geragos makes a very interesting argument, and you can see that it appears that he's wavering a bit to Geragos' side. Earlier, I thought he was going to rule in favor of the people, but Geragos has won some ground with the judge at this point. Then Jackson gets up and does what he does best. He explains that the extradition is at the heart of the matter.

Jackson says, "Once the ball starts to roll, it can't be undone." He presents I think three case law examples about extradition between states and also gives an example almost exactly like this case. The judge listens and apparently is swayed. "I don't want to rush into this ruling. I want to be as pragmatic as possible." The attorney's and the judge hash out a return date. Van Sicklen wants the people to address Geragos's 973 arguments. A date of Friday, May 9th at 1:30pm is set to argue this matter again. All paperwork (motions) are due on Monday of that week, which would be May 5th. And that's it.

The reporters slowly exit the courtroom and I overhear that there will be a press briefing on the Temple Street plaza. And I get confused as to where that is and it suddenly dawns on me that this is the front of the building. I've always entered the building from the back, on 1st Street. I step back into the courtroom just as Alan and Ric are at the foyer and I touch Jackson's arm and tell him, "Great argument." He reflexively says, "Thank you," and then a second later, recognizes me. He then tells me, "I was just reading an article about you!" At first I thought, Did I get some bad press somewhere? but Jackson goes onto say that it was the ABA Journal article and then he asks me what did I compare him to a dog or something? I'm struggling with what he's talking about and then I remember. I explain to Mr. Jackson that the ABA article attributed a statement to me that was actually by a guest writer to the blog, Sedonia Sunset. (Here is Sedonia Sunset's story where she compares Jackson and Pat Dixon to Chance and Shadow from the movie Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey.)

The sheriff's call out to Jackson and the rest of the DA's who sat in on the hearing that there's "an express elevator with your name on it," and they all head off to one of the freight elevators. As Sandi Gibbons is rounding the corner away from me she's calling out, "Sprocket! Sprocket! I've got that information for you! It's five!" And I'm totally lost to what she is referring to. (It's not until later in the day that I realize she must have gotten mixed up in what I was asking for. I know that five PBA witnesses testified in the Spector trial; I want to know how many witnesses in total the prosecution presented motions to present. How many, total. I know there were others and I could have sworn someone told me at one time there were a total of fourteen, but maybe what she's telling me is it's five more.)

Down on the Temple Street plaza, (which is just a small walkway area in front of the building) you can see that Mark Geragos glows when he gets in front of the camera. As he starts to speak to the media (and there are quite a few cameras trained on him) I turn to Sandi who is standing right behind me (along with Alan and Pat Dixon) and say, "He wore a nice tie today." That's all that I can positively say about Mark Geragos. While Geragos beams for the camera, Jackson and Dixon compare the quality of the shine on their shoes and I smile as look down to see who's shoes are out shining the other.

My notes are sketchy here, but Geragos statement to the media is something to the effect of, California has no authority in this case. Specific penal code sections prohibit double jeopardy happening. And then Geragos tries to put his interpretation as to what he thinks the people's position is. "The judge can't decide without Mr. Miura here." I write in my notebook here, He loves the camera. "It's a complex issue and there is no case on point," Geragos continues." He mentions the San Diego judge's decision in the Martinez case and behind me, it's either Sandi or Alan Jackson who whispers something that I can barely hear, "It's not final. He can't cite a trial court." From my understanding, that's correct. Geragos needs to cite a Superior Court ruling that hits the law books, not just a trial judge's decision in another case. Geragos then says, "I'm confident the law is clear here." And that's it for him; he hands the stage over to Alan Jackson, who is basically standing in for Sandi.

Mr. Jackson is brief. He states that before summarily deciding is there jurisdiction, those arguments can't be made until he (Miura) is here, before the court. Jackson mentions that the people will specifically be addressing Judge Van Sicklen's request to address penal code 793 that Geragos argued before the court today.

And that's it. Nothing new until the attorney's file new motions before the court on May 5th, and the hearing date on May 9th.

The Japanese reporter I was talking to in the hallway outside the courtroom, we exchange pleasant goodbyes, but I make sure to ask her for her business card and I write down my blog address in her notebook. On the plaza, another woman reporter approached me and asked if she could ask me some questions. She was not able to get into the hearing and wanted my impressions about the hearing as well as wanted to know my opinion about all the Japanese media attention.

I told her a little bit about myself (I'm a semi-retired house wife that takes care of a messy husband; that I have attended a few other high profile trials, I have a blog and that the ABA Journal wrote about my blogging.) I also told her what I thought of the proceeding. I thought the Public Liaison's office did a good job of being prepared for the Japanese press. This media interest isn't much different than the Spector or OJ case here, and the way they handled things today is pretty much how it goes in other high profile cases.

I thought Alan Jackson's arguments were fantastic. I went on to sing Alan's praises as a rising star in the prosecutors office: he's got tons of charisma and juries as well as the public just love him. I mentioned his great skills during the Spector case as well as Jackson's success in the Mickey Thompson case. I said that although the Miura case is big in Japan, there is no interest here in the US. I felt Miura is interesting because in Japan, from my understanding Miura pursued the media spotlight, and his current wife is a noteworthy personality also. She wanted to know about why I was here, and I said it's because it's a murder trial, and I follow murder trials. I've had a life long interest in criminal psychology. As a closing question she said that Japanese like to know people's ages and she asked me how old I was. I had to think for a moment and then told her, "I'm 53." I ask for her business card and write out my blog address for her, too.

Later this evening when I'm trying to write up my entry I dig the two business cards out of my pocket and I realize I am a total idiot. I can't remember which card goes with which reporter! One of the reporters was Mirei Sato, a staff writer for U.S. Frontline News, Inc., and the other woman was Mary Plummer, Los Angeles bureau reporter for the Yomiuri Shimbun. Ladies, I sincerely apologize. I'll put up the photos I took as soon as I download them from my camera.

KAZUYOSHI MIURA CASE - QUICK LINKS

This page will be periodically updated.

THE PLAYERS, PAST AND PRESENT
Kazuyoshi Miura Japanese business man, and president of a fashion import company. In 1981, Miura allegedly conspired to murder his wife, Kazumi, for the three insurance policies that were taken out on her life; one of them was signed the day before the fatal shooting. 
Kazumi Miura Wife of Kazuyoshi, shot in the head. She remained in a coma for about a year until she died in 1982, in Japan. Not long after she was shot she was flown back to Japan on a U.S. Military aircraft. There are conflicting reports on whether or not Miura was with her on that flight. 
Takanori Abi: The chief journalist involved in Los Angeles Suspicions for Bunshun. These articles initiated an investigation in Japan which resulted in Miura being charged with the August, 1981 attempted murder of his wife. 
Bruce Berline: One of three defense attorneys representing Miura in Saipan. 
Bunshun Japanese weekly magazine.
Benigno R. Fitial: Governor of Saipan.
William Fitzgerald: One of three defense attorneys representing Miura in Saipan.
Frank Garcia: LAPD Dectective who worked the case in Los Angeles and assisted Japanese prosecutors in recreating the 1981 shooting crime scene.
Mark Geragos: Current defense attorney for Miura in Los Angeles and frequent TV legal commentator. He was contacted by Miura's lawyers in Saipan and asked to handle legal matters in Los Angeles. Considered a "celebrity attorney" with past clients such as Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder; loves the spotlight in front of a camera.
Mark Hanson: One of three defense attorneys representing Miura in Saipan.
Shinichiro Hironaka: Current defense attorney for Miura in Japan.
Futaba Igarashi: Defense attorney for Miura in Japan at his first trial for the August, 1981 attempted murder of his wife at the New Otani Hotel in downtown Los Angeles.
Alan Jackson: DDA prosecuting Miura.
Rick Jackson: LAPD Detective, Cold Case Homicide Unit.
Nobutaka Machimura: Chief Cabinet Secretary and top government spokesperson for Japan. Machimura has stated that Japan would cooperate with the U.S. in the investigation of Miura if necessary.
Ramona Manglona Judge in Saipan. Manglona heads the court's proceedings over the arrest and extradition transfer of Miura.
Tim Marcia: LAPD Detective, Cold Case Homicide Unit.
Yoshikuni Matsumoto: A buyer for Miura's import company and charged as an accomplice in Kazumi's shooting death.
Yoshie Miura Current wife of Kazuyoshi. Married in 1985 on the island of Bali.
Mike Nisperos: Assistant Attorney General in Saipan handling the arrest and extradition of Miura in Saipan.
Ricardo "Ric" Ocampo: [now Judge Ocampo] former DDA prosecuting Miura.
Eri Poss: LAPD Officer.
Ira Reiner: Los Angeles District Attorney in 1981. Publicly stated Miura was the chief suspect in the death of Chizuko Shiraishi.
Charles Reyes, Jr.: Court Press Secretary in Saipan.
Jimmy Sadoka, Retired LAPD Lt. who originally investigated the case and assisted Japanese authorities in their prosecution of Miura. Sadoka, who has followed the case ever since, alerted authorities that Miura was planning on traveling to Saipan.
Saipan: U.S. Territory. The Superior Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is the jurisdiction handling Miura's transfer to the US.
Yasuko Sasaki: Kazumi's mother.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Governor of California
Chizuko Shiraishi, Kazuyoshi's accountant and lover, murdered in Los Angeles back in 1979. Her body, found in a vacant Lake View Terrace field two months after she disappeared, wasn't identified until 1984. Sole suspect in her death is Kazuyoshi.
Jeffery Warfield: Chief prosecutor in Saipan handling the Miura arrest and extradition.
Koji Yamada: Chief prosecutor in Japan for the 1981 shooting death of Kazumi.
Michiko Yazawa, co-conspiritor, one time porn actress and former lover of Kazuyoshi in the August 1981 murder attempt on Kazumi at the New Otani Hotel in downtown Los Angeles.


GENERAL TIMELINE OF EVENTSAugust, 1981: Michiko Yazawa attacks Miura's wife, Kazumi, with a hammer in her room at the New Otani Hotel in Los Angeles, CA.

November, 18, 1981: Around noon, according to Kazuyoshi Miura, he and his wife Kazumi are attacked by unknown assailants while they were snapping pictures of the downtown skyline. Kazumi is shot in the head and Kazuyoshi is shot in his left leg on Fremont Avenue in downtown Los Angeles. Kazumi is left in a coma.

November, 1982: Kazumi dies in Japan.

1984: Japanese magazine, Bunshun , publishes a series of articles titled Los Angeles Suspicions that alleged Miura not only financially benefited from the murder of Kazumi, he also benefited from the murder of a former mistress, Chizuko Shiraishi, in 1979, taking thousands from her account after she disappears.

September 11, 1985: Miura is arrested in Japan for the August, 1981 attempted murder.

October 3rd, 1985: Miura and an accomplice, Michiko Yazawa, are charged with attempted murder.

January, 1986: Michiko Yazawa is convicted for her part in the August, 1981 murder attempt.

August, 1987: Muria is tried and convicted for the August, 1981 attempted murder of his wife at the New Otani Hotel in downtown Los Angeles.

1988: Miura is charged with conspiracy to commit murder for the November 18, 1981 shooting death of his wife. He was charged in Los Angeles on May 5th, and at a later date in Japan.

1994: Suspected accomplice Yoshikuni Matsumoto, is charged with conspiring with Miura to murder his wife in the November, 1981 shooting. In 1994 he was exonerated, but convicted of smuggling a rifle and 100 pounds of ammunition from the U.S. into Japan. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

March, 1994: Miura is convicted of his wife's murder and sentenced to life in prison in Japan.

1998: Japan's high court overturned the lower court's sentence. A judge determined that his wife's assailant was unknown, acquitting Miura of the murder.

February 22, 2008: Miura arrested in Saipan.

March 28th, 2008: Next hearing date in Saipan.

Note: Los Angeles Times archives were used extensively for this background summary. Sprocket.

T&T Pre trial Coverage
March 15th, 2008 Kazuyoshi Miura: 1981 Cold Case Headed Back to Court
April 23rd, 2008 Kazuyoshi Miura: Pre-trial Hearing
April 23rd, 2008 Kazuyoshi Miura: Pre-trial Hearing, Part II
May 9th, 2008 Kazuyoshi Miura: Pre-trial Hearing
July 17th, 2008 Kazuyoshi Miura Case Delayed Again
September 26th, 2008: Judge Rules Conspiracy Charge Can Go Forward
October 2nd, 2008: Phil Spector, OJ Simpson & Kazuyoshi Miura
October 11th, 2008: Kazuyoshi Miura Found Dead!
October 24th, 2008: Kazuyoshi Miura's Body Creamated Thursday

December 7th, Pre-trial hearing, Phil Spector

Update 3!
I'm here on the 9th floor with Dr. Adams. There is no one that I can see from the Spector trial, although Judge Fidler's clerk, Wendy just arrived. Hopefully the courtroom will be opened soon. Dr. Adams is still watching that dual jury trial in 107. The two juries are in deliberations, yet there is another case with the same judge that is starting jury selection for another trial. One of the juries is using courtroom 104's jury room for their deliberations. Dr. Adams just ran off since his courtroom opened just as I wrote this.

I'm having trouble keeping connected to the net in the hallway. When I tell Dr. Adams that before he took off, he tells me that all the CourtTV personnel, anyone on a laptop in the back row during trial number one had the same problem.

The hallway is somewhat empty. They're are people on benches, but it is no where full. I think one of the court reporters just went into 106. It's a face I've not seen before.

I just got kicked from the net again, but it could be because I was looking at the phone, and just jiggled the wire a bit. It's a waiting game now, to be let into 106.

Although I promised myself I would try to learn to use the built in keypad for my macBook, I procrastinated. So, I'm cheating. I've got my Logitech wireless mouse on the bench beside me, and I'm using that.

There is a mix of people in the hallway. Court employees, attorneys, and those waiting for trials that must still be in deliberations.

And y'all will just have to bear with me and my terrible spelling. I probably won't have time to spell check everything before I post it.

There was this one attorney in the hallway, but it appears that he's waiting for 108 to get started. I've seen his face before, but I don't know his name.

There's is quite a bit of chatter from the people in the hallway. Some are reading books while others are catching a last minute bit of breakfast. The hallway is getting busier, but no familiar faces other than Wendy, the clerk, who already arrived.

A reporter, a woman I've seen before has shown up.

A juror on another trial comes by and thinks I'm working. "That's a good idea." I explain that I'm a blogger, writing about the Spector trial. He wants to know how I'm connected, and I tell him my husband figured everything out, using our cell phone to "tether" to the net. The juror, Larry, and I talk about the Spector trial for a bit. But it looks like he might have to go into a courtroom soon.

I'm inside the courtroom!

The female reporter is arranging with the bailiff to set up sound for the hearing. She's from radio. I just got the courage to ask her which station she's from. It's KNX.

There are a total of five people in the gallery. (That includes me.) Wendy is talking to some one who is at her desk. The bailiff is at her station.

Another trial watcher enters, a young man in jeans, tennis shoes and carrying a red notebook. I've never seen him before, and he sits on the plastic chairs against the back wall near the door. I'm hoping my battery holds out for the next hour. I can see that from now on, even in the hallway, I'm gong to have to hook up the Mac to an outlet. During Spector I, power was provided for those on laptops. Now there is an outlet, or what looks like an outlet from here, all the way in the far left corner, right where the still photographer would set up, and behind where the CTV video control operators would sit at their little console station. I'm going to go check it out.

Darn! The problem with tethering the phone is, any movement with the phone wire can cause it to disconnect, but yes, if I have to, I could move down there and use the outlet.

Ah, the guy with the notebook appears to be an undercover detective. He's talking to other people in the courtroom, and it's clear from the conversation. It's most likely they are here to get documents signed by Judge Fidler, but I won't know until I actually see the Judge.

The bailiff leaves to get a defendant. Wendy just asked her to go get someone. Maybe the black man at Wendy's bench is the individuals attorney. Yep. I just heard him say, "I wanted to get on that case."

There's Judge Fidler.

He's signing documents for three gentlemen who have been waiting. Two of the gentlemen leave. The one who appears to be an attorney is still here.

The defendant comes in. His attorney is a woman, and the man who stayed behind must be the prosecutor.

The woman reporter from radio, leaves and tells me that the hearing is at ten am. Now it's coming back to me. I do remember meeting her at Spector 1, but for the life of my fading brain, I can not remember her first name, and I'm too embarrassed/shy to ask. But she addressed me by my first name, so she remembers my first name like a good reporter would.

Court is in session for another case. Defense attorney is asking to put the matter over for Feb. 1st. They are still hammering out charges. Everything is agreed to, and the defendant in his blue jail uniform, is taken back.

Alan Parachini, head of the court's public relations office comes in, and the KNX reporter tries to arrange with him to get the audio sound set up. Alan looks good. His hair is a bit shorter. I'm not sure if she got that approved or not, but I think so. They chat a bit, but I'm not really following the conversation.

The courtroom is very quiet. Probably no one will show until about 20 minutes from now, if they are on time. Alan left, the reporter is here with someone (another staffer?), and they talk. It's just the three of us in the gallery. I ask the reporter if they will have sound, and she tells me that Channel 5 will be filming, so they will take sound off of them. Understand, Ch. 5 will not be live. They will have to wait to take the film back to a truck or studio before they can put it on the net.

The court reporter is all set up (She handled the 30 second hearing earlier.) and Wendy and her chat a bit.

The Spector's and two bodyguards just walked in. Steven, Mikulan from the LA Weekly, who just arrived and sat down beside me, said they had to use the public metal detectors today. The place they used to go to was locked. (The private service elevators.)

Rachelle and Spector are sitting in the front row, Rachelle has her arm around Spector. She's wearing what looks like from here, a suede tan colored suit. Here hair is pulled back into a ponytail, and she has these little childlike tiny flower clips in her hair.

Damn. What happened to my last entry?

Doron Weinberg shows up. Rachelle gets up and gives him a hug and a big smile, Spector smiles, and they exit the courtroom. Alan Parachini is in the back row, texting on his blackberry, and Ciaran McEvoy from City News sets up. Steven suggests I plug into the wired box in the back corner, but I tell him I better ask first.

The Spector's and bodyguards reenter the courtroom. Doron goes up to speak to Wendy. The Spector's are back in the front row, sitting next to the wall. One of Alan's staff enters, a cute young woman I remember from Spector 1. I wish I could remember all their names. Doron hands Alan Parachini his business card, and leaves the courtroom. This all looks good towards a deal being inked. Let's hope so!

Another reporter entered earlier and is sitting in row 2 behind the KNX reporter. They are all chatting it up, and then the KNX reporter asks me if I remember "Circus of the Stars." And, it's vague, but I barely remember a show like that.

The family, their counsel, Alan Jackson, Pat Dixon, and Ric Ocampo (sp? do I have that name right?) all arrive. The attorney's greet Mr. Weinberg, and Rick is chatting with him still standing in the aisle.

I catch Mr. Jackson's eye, and he waves to me. Linda Deutsch arrived with the big group, and another reporter just arrived with Sandi Gibbons. Sandi and Linda Deutsch chat a bit, and Alan Jackson is talking to Ciaran and Steven.

KTLA (Channel 5) has NOT shown up, so KNX is trying to quickly set up their microphone. I notice Rachelle is wearing some gold hoop earrings that look like they might be about 1.5 inches across.

Rod Lindblom, one of the family attorney's looks back, catches my eye, smiles and waves.

There is a bit of chatter. The reporters are trying to set up a microphone at the judge's desk. Mr. Weinberg paces. Jackson and Mr. Taylor are chatting.

The bailiff announces: "Cell phones off please!" The attorney's stand. Spector is at the table.

The Judge takes the bench.

Weinberg says he is prepared to be accepted at his attorney.

He is the soul counsel for the defense at this time. Chris Plourd is in San Diego and is unavailable since he in another trial after the one he currently in now.

35,000 pages, including trial transcript. Weinberg is giving a list of things he has to go over.

In order for me to get to the level of knowledge about the trial and the .... he needs about five months. And then, more time after that. Plourd isn't free until September anyway.

The Judge asks to hear from the people. Jackson and Dixon confer.

Dixon says they want something as soon as possible. I would ask at this time not to set (a date of) September, and come back in February, to see where we are.

Weinberg responds, referring to Plourd's schedule. "He is in trial right now." Mentions the trial/defendant. He won't be done with that, until March 12. And then, another trial after that. Brown and the one he is in now will keep him tied up until the earliest, August/September.

Judge Fidler speaks. "I think I have a resolution that will solve it for everybody. Set it as the beginning in July, up to mid August."

Just depends on Mr. Plourds trials.

Weinberg asks not to do that. Plourd won't be ready until at least July, most likely August.

Now Weinberg mentions a family vacation that he always takes in August, 2 weeks, and goes on about his boys being at an age where, this is the last time they he will probably be able to vacation with them.

Judge Fidler responds, "We will come back in May, and see what your needs are."

Alan speaks. He has a request. They may be looking at other experts. "I don't want to wait until May to know about other experts." Waiting until May is okay as far as checking where we are.

Doron is still stalling about that.

Judge says, "discovery compliance date." Doron says a date in March. Alan looks at calender. Alan leans over the gallery wall and asks John Taylor about March and he says okay.

Judge just needs the "zero of 60" date for legal purposes. Thursday March 22nd, is the next trial date time. 9:00 am. That's just a check in date.

And that's it.
The judge leaves the bench.

Then Doron asks the judge back, and asks about the Spector's gag order from first trial.

Doron asks if they can be relieved at the gag order.

Fidler responds. Any potential witness, anyone acting on their behalf, at this time he is going to keep the gag order in place.

Judge says, everyone else can, but he doesn't believe the participants should. Keep that order in effect.

How does the Judge want to schedule motions? The Judge replies, to get with the DA, work something out, and then schedule it with the clerk.

And that's it for sure. Everyone slowly mills out of the courtroom, chatting with those they know and exchanging pleasantries, talking about other cases. Etc.

The Spectors finally leave the courtroom with their attorneys.

Hopefully, I'll have more later.

The bailiffs say they are going to take the Spector's down using the service elevator.

Updated! 12:15 pm
It appears I have my dates totally off. I missed it totally when they said Friday, March 7th, for the next pretrial hearing, and it's Thursday, May 22nd, for the next "zero-sixty" countdown. The time I believe for the first hearing would be 10:00 am and in May, it would be 9:00 am.

Outside the courtroom, I met two very nice ladies, Sherri and Robin, trial watchers just like me, who saw my Market Tote and asked me, "Are you Sprocket?" Yep, that's me! We talked about the first trial a bit, and they both said that they are going to attend the second trial. Robin and Sherri said that originally, they were going to fly up to San Francisco for the Barry Bonds hearing, but they couldn't get a flight. Another thing one of them asked (I'm sorry I can't remember which one) was, "Does he always look like that?" And I ask, "You mean like, Medicated? Yep. That's how he always is." I'm looking forward to seeing both of them at the next pretrial hearing. It will be nice to have some other trial watchers to discuss the case with and hopefully have lunch with.

On my drive home, I finally remembered the KNX reporter's name. Claudia! I hope I don't forget it again.

Update: 1:35 pm
I know that Alan Jackson leaned into John Taylor and appeared to be asking him about a check in date for the next pretrial hearing sometime in March. And I thought at first, I heard March 7th, then the date "Thursday, the 22nd was passed around, after Wendy said "the 23rd, they were dark."

Linda Deutsch of the AP has a report up, but it doesn't mention a date in March. It just mentions the May 22nd date. I've sent out a few emails, asking friends in the courtroom for clarification on the next pretrial hearing date.

Update: 2:05 pm
Thank you so much Sandi Gibbons! There are two dates. March 7th and May 22nd. Both hearings are at 9:00 am. The first date is being called a "discovery compliance hearing," but will probably be more of a status hearing, to see how far the defense is, in going through all the material from trial #1. The May 22nd date is a trial date, but it is not a "firm" trial date. It will also function as a status hearing, to see how much longer the defense will need to get ready, and what is happening with Plourd's two cases, one in Imperial County and one in San Diego County. Those two cases will be the ones to watch, to see how far they get and if they have any set backs.